One day after DC police’s reasonable camera policy, phone still taken

DC resident did get his phone back, minus the memory card and family pictures.

On July 20, just 24 hours after a new camera policy was enacted by the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC—you guessed it—the cops still took a guy’s phone. The new policy forbids the confiscation of cameras and cameraphones, and disallows police from ordering citizens to stop filming or taking photos of police action.

According to a local Fox TV affiliate, Earl Staley, a 26-year-old local resident started trying to record officers who were punching a man who they were arresting.

"So I go and grab my phone and start trying to record it," Staley told Fox 5 News in the District. "And once I do that, another vice cop reaches over my back and grabs my phone and tells me he's not giving my phone back."

Staley eventually did get his phone back, minus the memory card, which apparently had hundreds of photos of his daughter on it.

"I know it has to be illegal," Staley told Fox. "It hurt me a lot because that's a lot of pictures."

He’s right—it is illegal under the MPD’s new General Order (PDF) issued by Chief Cathy Lanier herself.

“A member [of the police department] shall not, implicitly or explicitly, coerce consent to take possession of any recording device or any information thereon,” the new order states.

Where are all those wonderful folks from the first post about this wonderful new policy that told us how severe punishments for police are, as well as how a well written policy regarding punishments for violation of this new policy simply weren't needed? Well? Where are you now?

All issues of legality aside, why would you keep "hundreds" of photos of your child on your phone without backing them up anywhere?

They were on his flash card. Did you read the article? People don't dump their flash to a HDD after each single photo. Many are unaware there are services and applications that will do that automatically for both photos and videos.

All issues of legality aside, why would you keep "hundreds" of photos of your child on your phone without backing them up anywhere?

When you're a parent some times you don't have time enough to do the things you would normally do. My camera regularly has a hundred or more photos that hasn't been transferred to my home computer. Dinner, bath, bed and clean up trumps computer housekeeping.

Now that the policy against such confiscation is in place, police officers acting against it can no longer claim Qualified Immunity as a defense against law suits. In other words, the victim can sue the offending officer directly, and hold him personally liable for violating now-established law.

I didn't see anything referring to violations in the General Order linked above.

I don't think rules generally contain punishments themselves, as that doesn't tend to be very scalable. It's more like "If you violate a rule then X happens", and then they can just add rules as they wish independently.

Akemi wrote:

Where are all those wonderful folks from the first post about this wonderful new policy that told us how severe punishments for police are, as well as how a well written policy regarding punishments for violation of this new policy simply weren't needed? Well? Where are you now?

Oh please. I was certainly somewhat skeptical, and as always the proof in the end is in action, not words, but your crazy hysterics are awfully stupid also. Are you honestly expecting instantaneous investigation and judgement? It's been what, a day? Hours? It wouldn't move that fast even if it was a simple case of shoplifting with cameras and a hundred witnesses, it'd take a few days/weeks to get in front of a judge.

Obviously if there is still no comment tomorrow or next week, or if in the end the officer really does get off with a slap on the wrist, then outrage will absolutely be justified. But it's not going to happen overnight either, nor should it. Rules don't prevent all rule breaking, duh, they're also there to provide correction afterwards. If anything, this is excellent: almost instantly, we have a case, while the topic is still very fresh in the public's mind, that'll force them to show how serious they really are. Since they just made the big public statement as required by the lawsuit, it should be much harder to sweep it under the rug, which in turn should add significant extra pressure to do the right thing, and that would set a good precedent. If nothing came up for months it wouldn't have quite the same impact.

Charge him with armed robbery, given that his actions are, by policy, not related to or sanctioned by his position as a police officer.

MilleniX wrote:

Now that the policy against such confiscation is in place, police officers acting against it can no longer claim Qualified Immunity as a defense against law suits. In other words, the victim can sue the offending officer directly, and hold him personally liable for violating now-established law.

Agreed. Even if officials drag their heels or are inclined to be lenient, it should now be possible for private citizens to take their own action, always an excellent check on power. I hope the victim does that regardless of what the city does.

I didn't see anything referring to violations in the General Order linked above.

I don't think rules generally contain punishments themselves, as that doesn't tend to be very scalable. It's more like "If you violate a rule then X happens", and then they can just add rules as they wish independently.

Akemi wrote:

Where are all those wonderful folks from the first post about this wonderful new policy that told us how severe punishments for police are, as well as how a well written policy regarding punishments for violation of this new policy simply weren't needed? Well? Where are you now?

Oh please. I was certainly somewhat skeptical, and as always the proof in the end is in action, not words, but your crazy hysterics are awfully stupid also. Are you honestly expecting instantaneous investigation and judgement? It's been what, a day? Hours? It wouldn't move that fast even if it was a simple case of shoplifting with cameras and a hundred witnesses, it'd take a few days/weeks to get in front of a judge.

Obviously if there is still no comment tomorrow or next week, or if in the end the officer really does get off with a slap on the wrist, then outrage will absolutely be justified. But it's not going to happen overnight either, nor should it. Rules don't prevent all rule breaking, duh, they're also there to provide correction afterwards. If anything, this is excellent: almost instantly, we have a case, while the topic is still very fresh in the public's mind, that'll force them to show how serious they really are. Since they just made the big public statement as required by the lawsuit, it should be much harder to sweep it under the rug, which in turn should add significant extra pressure to do the right thing, and that would set a good precedent. If nothing came up for months it wouldn't have quite the same impact.

Show me one instance of any officer in any of the states where lawsuits have gone in citizens favor for the right to record police where a cop has even been reprimanded for continuing to abuse their power with regard to recordings. Just one.

You can bury your head in the sand and keep giving law enforcement their 9-millionth chance. I'm neither that naive nor stupid.

Charge him with armed robbery, given that his actions are, by policy, not related to or sanctioned by his position as a police officer.

You'd need to show intent. Not gonna happen. Stripping qualified immunity to allow a personal lawsuit is the best you can hope for.

Quote:

Obviously if there is still no comment tomorrow or next week, or if in the end the officer really does get off with a slap on the wrist, then outrage will absolutely be justified.

This is precisely what will happen. SOP for pretty much all police departments is to just keep quiet and point to "an ongonig investigation" until the media moves on, then quietly announce the paid vacation.

It usually takes something dramatic, like shooting an unarmed person in the back, to make this strategy fail.

Cameras are now so cheap that police should be forced to record every action they make.

It's actually incredibly expensive. If the police do the recordings, then they have to retain these recordings for various length of time depending on their location. They may have retention periods of two to ten years.

I didn't see anything referring to violations in the General Order linked above.

I don't think rules generally contain punishments themselves, as that doesn't tend to be very scalable. It's more like "If you violate a rule then X happens", and then they can just add rules as they wish independently.

Akemi wrote:

Where are all those wonderful folks from the first post about this wonderful new policy that told us how severe punishments for police are, as well as how a well written policy regarding punishments for violation of this new policy simply weren't needed? Well? Where are you now?

Oh please. I was certainly somewhat skeptical, and as always the proof in the end is in action, not words, but your crazy hysterics are awfully stupid also. Are you honestly expecting instantaneous investigation and judgement? It's been what, a day? Hours? It wouldn't move that fast even if it was a simple case of shoplifting with cameras and a hundred witnesses, it'd take a few days/weeks to get in front of a judge.

Obviously if there is still no comment tomorrow or next week, or if in the end the officer really does get off with a slap on the wrist, then outrage will absolutely be justified. But it's not going to happen overnight either, nor should it. Rules don't prevent all rule breaking, duh, they're also there to provide correction afterwards. If anything, this is excellent: almost instantly, we have a case, while the topic is still very fresh in the public's mind, that'll force them to show how serious they really are. Since they just made the big public statement as required by the lawsuit, it should be much harder to sweep it under the rug, which in turn should add significant extra pressure to do the right thing, and that would set a good precedent. If nothing came up for months it wouldn't have quite the same impact.

Show me one instance of any officer in any of the states where lawsuits have gone in citizens favor for the right to record police where a cop has even been reprimanded for continuing to abuse their power with regard to recordings. Just one.

You can bury your head in the sand and keep giving law enforcement their 9-millionth chance. I'm neither that naive nor stupid.

I know this doesn't mean everyone gets justice, but it doesn't mean he won't. I'm sure something will come of this, if he decides to press charges.

Show me one instance of any officer in any of the states where lawsuits have gone in citizens favor for the right to record police where a cop has even been reprimanded for continuing to abuse their power with regard to recordings. Just one.

You can bury your head in the sand and keep giving law enforcement their 9-millionth chance. I'm neither that naive nor stupid.

Glik, though that was a settlement not a ruling. Just four months ago.

Though the on police recording by the MA court essentially guaranteed he'd win in the suit, which is why they settled the claim. Also, a federal ruling...last year?...that struck down a state law banning recording of police.

This is actually pretty new law, so no there won't be many cases yet going in favor of the citizens.

You can bury your head in the sand and keep giving law enforcement their 9-millionth chance. I'm neither that naive nor stupid.

Yes you are. Demanding something fundamentally impossible is stupid, period. The rest of what you said is irrelevant.

cmacd wrote:

This is precisely what will happen. SOP for pretty much all police departments is to just keep quiet and point to "an ongonig investigation" until the media moves on, then quietly announce the paid vacation.

It usually takes something dramatic, like shooting an unarmed person in the back, to make this strategy fail.

In this case though we might have one of those unusual situations where there actually is additional political pressure. As I said, an issue is that it's just plain too soon after the big flashy announcement. If they really do blow it off, then it's going to make them look unusually bad. Not saying that it doesn't always look bad, but going to zero is just one day would be more embarrassing then normal. So there will be some political pressure to "make an example" and save face, even if they planned to quietly blow it off after 6 months.

Will that be enough? I don't know, but I also disagree with the comfortable, lazy cynicism that so many Internet armchair posters seem to wallow in. For all the civil rights problems that still exist and new ones that appear, progress does happen. It's messy and it takes work, and improvement tends to be slow, but it's still worth marching onward with. This actually seems ever better the more I think about it, it seems like a solid test case and almost instantly, while the issue is still very fresh. It may serve as a lever to make the rule much more serious then it would have been otherwise, and to keep it all in the limelight.

Hate to say it because there are enough lawsuits being files as it is. But the more people start suing city and state governments over illegal seizures such as this and violations of constitutional rights, then the sooner these states are going to start following suit. Of course this article still highlights that ignorance of laws and procedures on the law enforcement side will still result in such situations. But now the law enforcement can be held accountable.

Show me one instance of any officer in any of the states where lawsuits have gone in citizens favor for the right to record police where a cop has even been reprimanded for continuing to abuse their power with regard to recordings. Just one.

You can bury your head in the sand and keep giving law enforcement their 9-millionth chance. I'm neither that naive nor stupid.

Glik, though that was a settlement not a ruling. Just four months ago.

Though the on police recording by the MA court essentially guaranteed he'd win in the suit, which is why they settled the claim. Also, a federal ruling...last year?...that struck down a state law banning recording of police.

This is actually pretty new law, so no there won't be many cases yet going in favor of the citizens.

Once again, the officer, what happened to the officer that committed the offense? That's where nothing ever happens. Settlements against departments, when end up payed via tax payer monies aren't punishment for the officer(s) guilty of falsely arresting or confiscating property.

Pretty fortunate to have very little lag between the new policy and the first offense, should help the plaintiff's case.

They'll probably just say something like, "The officers had not yet heard about this new directive".

Doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure the memo of the changes was passed out to all departments within the DC police. Ignorance is not a reason nor excuse and I doubt it will be accepted by a court. Especially when the change in policies made national news headlines.